sebi:EAD/KS/AA/AO/81-90/2017-18

SEBI · SEBI · 2016-02-22 · K Saravanan, General Manager & Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Adjudication proceedings disposed of; no violations established, no penalty imposed

Provisions invoked

Regulations

Parties

Holding

The Adjudicating Officer held that none of the alleged violations of Regulation 29(2) of SAST 2011, Regulation 13(3) and Regulation 13(4A) of PIT 1992 were established against the ten Noticees, and accordingly disposed of the adjudication proceedings without imposing any monetary penalty.

Full text

Page 2 of 16 subsequently were listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange with effect from July 16, 2015. 2. While examining the letter of offer, Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’) observed that: (a) Shri Vithal Kamat (‘Noticee 1’), Ms. Vidya Kamat (‘Noticee 2’), Shri Ramesh Shanbhag (‘Noticee 3’), and Vithal V Kamat HUF (‘Noticee 4’) in the past had violated the provisions of Regulation 29(2) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAST, 2011’), Regulations 13(3) and 13(4A) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PIT, 1992’); and (b) Shri Vishal Kamat (‘Noticee 5’), Shri Vikram Kamat (‘Noticee 6’), Kamat Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (‘Noticee 7’), Indira Investments Pvt. Ltd. (‘Noticee 8’), Vishal Amusement Ltd. (‘Noticee 9’) and Kamat Holiday Resorts (Silvassa) Pvt. Ltd. (‘Noticee 10’) in the past had violated the provisions of Regulation 29(2) of the SAST, 2011 and Regulation 13(4A) of the PIT, 1992.

Page 3 of 16 5. Pursuant to the transfer of Shri Prasad Jagadale, Shri Suresh Gupta was appointed as Adjudicating Officer. Thereafter, vide appointment order dated May 18, 2017, the adjudication proceedings were transferred to the undersigned which was intimated vide communique dated July 24, 2017.

Page 4 of 16 c) It was also alleged that Shri Vithal Kamat, Ms. Vidya Kamat, Shri Ramesh Shanbhag and Vithal V Kamat HUF did not comply with the provisions of Regulation 13(3) [read with Regulation 13(5)] of PIT, 1992 in respect of disclosure in Form C within two working days of the aforesaid sale of shares regarding the number of shares or voting rights held and change in shareholding or voting rights. d) Further, it was also alleged that the Noticees did not make disclosures in Form D to the stock exchange where shares of SIICL were listed (i.e., ASE at the relevant time) disclosing the information specified in Regulation 13(4A) of the PIT, 1992 within 2 working days of the aforesaid sale of shares of SIICL.

You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.

Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.

Analyse this matter in Ontology · Plans

Source: SecMarx — sebi:EAD/KS/AA/AO/81-90/2017-18. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.